Simulation

Engagement spaces are not algorithms that can be modeled. The emergent behaviour needs to be observed in a simulation or serious game.

“Gaming” the rules

A serious game with representatives of stakeholders has another advantage: humans are known to be creative in  “gaming” systems and rules to manipulate the outcome to their advantage. One of the objectives of a “game” must to be search for these options. It may be necessary to design specific rules or controls to prevent unwanted behaviour.

Complexity

Another outcome of a simulation or game may be that complexity can be reduced or must be reduced.

A design can be too complex to understand for normal participants: being able to navigate the options and understand the trade-offs is vital for acceptance. One of the successful approaches is to add support systems (IT) that do the heavy lifting of translating potential choices into projected results. Humans are excellent goal seekers, if presented with a feedback loop.

A design may be unnecessary complex by trying to account for all possible situations: edge cases can become a heavy burden in terms of rules. A successful approach is to create an “escape” for these edge cases, reverting back to humans who sit around the table and solve this exception.

For instance: if a roundabout is jammed by an overload of traffic, send in the police to give directions to unblock the traffic jam

A design may become unnecessary complex because the normal existing daily practice and culture is ignored or unknown. For instance: in most cities the delivery trucks to shops come there every day or so, with the same drivers. The local police may recognize them as a professional with good intentions: together they often create a way of working that is acceptable to both, that follows the rules by intention but not by the letter. Trying to impose an engagement space on them is overly complex and counterproductive.